1601-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Sault Area Hospitals (Plummer Memorial Public Hospital and Sault Ste. Marie General Hospital) (Full Time Unit), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 268, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF TIMOTHY W. SARGEANT, VICE CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER H. PEACOCK; September 5, 2000
This is an application for certification.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant (see section 8(3) of the Act), that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the union at the time the application was made.
The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Sault Area Hospitals at Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma District, save and except professional medical staff, graduate nursing staff, undergraduate nurses, graduate pharmacists, undergraduate pharmacists, graduate dietitians, student dietitians, technical personnel, supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, chief engineer, office staff and persons regularly employed for not more than 24 hours per week and students hired for the school vacation period.
The vote will be held on September 7, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on September 1, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on September 1, 2000, the certification application filing date, include employees who were not at work on that date, so long as there is a reasonable expectation of their return to employment.
Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.
The intervenor alleges unfair labour practices in respect of this application. Further, the intervenor has filed submissions that the application be dismissed because of an apparent breach of an Order of the Superior Court of Justice and because of a breach of a Constitution of the Canadian Labour Congress. The Board has considered similar submissions in previous decisions and found no support for the intervenor’s position. The Board in this instance having considered such submissions of the intervenor is not prepared to accede to this request.
The intervenor submits that the applicant does not have membership evidence on behalf of forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit and relies on sections 7(4), 8(2), 8.1 and 9 of the Labour Relations Act and therefore requests that the application should be dismissed. It should be noted that the employer has not given the Board notice pursuant to section 8.1 of the Act. The Board has considered such submission and finds it is not prepared to accede to this request. The Board has found in paragraph 3 that based on the information filed by the applicant not less than forty percent of the individuals in the bargaining proposed in the application were members of the applicant union at the time the applicant was made.
The intervenor has also submitted that the application should be dismissed as being untimely pursuant to section 7(4) of the Act pursuant to submissions based on the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act. In the circumstances, the Board directs that the ballot box from the representation vote be sealed. The ballots will not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to each of the posted copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, other than status disputes, including any matters relating to the representation vote, must file a detailed statement of representations with the Board and deliver it to the other parties, so that it is received by the Board within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is closed) of the date on which the vote is taken. Representations with respect to any status dispute must be made in accordance with the directions provided in Information Bulletin No. 4: Status Disputes in Certification Applications (Non-Construction).
The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RUNDLE; September 5, 2000
I dissent.
The issue of timeliness is in my view a threshold issue that must be decided by the Board. Absent a “timely” application the Board does not have the statutory jurisdiction to order a representation vote.
J. A. Rundle